An additional investigation that is estimated to cost another $3 million of
taxpayer money! Crazy. Even if he was totally cleared, which at this point
isn't likely, it's doubtful he could ever render that much value in
service to Utah during his remaining term.

If Swallow's
priorities were actually directed toward the good of the state of Utah, as
opposed to personal ambitions, he would concede that he is just now to
controversial and step down... before his likely impeachment. There is already
too much evidence against him to ever completely clear his name and allow him to
effectively serve in the AG office. There comes times in everyone's lives
when they have to cast away personal pride, face reality, and know when to just
walk away. For Swallow, one of those times is now.

You stated, “There is already too much evidence
against him to ever completely clear his name and allow him to effectively serve
in the AG office.”

Just what is that evidence? Is it
felonious? Has that evidence been validated by law enforcement investigators.
Did it occur before he was elected Attorney General?

If the evidence
indicates there was a felony committed by Swallow, then I agree – Swallow
has a problem and should resign. If the evidence does not indicate there was
felony committed, then I do not buy into the theory that Swallow is guilty
before proven innocent.

Furthermore if the supposed non-felonious
action occurred before he was elected, then he will not be convicted under the
impeachment process.

The recorded tapes unquestionably implicate Swallow with
several different associations with convicted felons concerning business
dealings that very much put into question his ethical conduct in regards to the
requirements for serving as the state attorney general, which needs to be above
any questionable behavior. Granted, it's a higher standard, but necessary
in that regard. From what I've read in the paper, some of his own
admissions have added to the ongoing controversy. So whether of not he is
ever found guilty of any felony (and yes, we all and should be innocent until
proven guilty), there is already that nearly indisputable unethical conduct
cloud over his head that will make it extremely difficult for him to function
effectively in the near-term future in his current (very high personal ethics
required) capacity.

You keep beating this drum VST, without looking at either the Utah or U.S.
Constitutions or historical precedents.

"High crimes and
misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office" does not mean, in the historical
sense of the wording, that actual felonies or misdemeanors were committed.
Those were terms to refer to breaches of ethics or public trust, though if he
did commit felonies or misdemeanors, that would also qualify. The standard for
judging what may have been done wrong is different than in a criminal court.
Therefore, those "crimes" don't have to be validated by law
enforcement.

The argument about whether he should be impeached for
"crimes" before he was sworn into office is an interesting. If he
actually committed felonies or misdemeanors before being elected, and is
convicted of those, should we let him retain the office? The answer to that is
no, but would still require impeachment to remove him.

The problem
comes down to whether or not he committed ethical breaches before he was elected
(which according to the evidence he admits to, I believe he did). Then what?
We don't impeach because he's cleaned up his act and is not doing it
now?

Much clearer perspective of what you initially were
attempting to say and I appreciate it. It clearly puts in context your
contention that Swallow’s previous actions puts “…into
question his ethical conduct in regards to the requirements for serving as the
state attorney general, which needs to be above any questionable
behavior…” I agree that it is indeed an issue of adhering to a
higher ethical standard and being able to be above reproach. The use of the
word “evidence” in your earlier post results in a totally different
trigger for me.

@Cincinnatus,

Tators had a much
better/clearer answer than you did. Sorry, but your response would not have
convinced me. Furthermore, you may have misunderstood me if you incorrectly
concluded that that I have been solidly against impeachment of Swallow.

The committee is right on one thing, only his time in office and election
campaign from time he registered to seek the office of AG as was the original
accusation.

Any events outside this time period are not to be
investigated and information outside the time period is irrelevant and should be
dismissed.

Why a panel of 9? People on trial for their life only get
6 jury members and this 9 is overkill and will do nothing but muddle the issue.
I'm sure that is the intent of the democrats to bring up irrelevant issue
to drag out this kangaroo court for months if not years.

In addition
the panel should be sequestered with gag orders for them not to discuss this
trail with the press or law enforcement departments. It is unconstitutional for
this panel to invade the privacy and personal business records while Swallow was
legal council for private citizens or businesses.

The plan for the
purpose of this council is to smear and abuse the privileges of trust to violate
privacy of lawyers and clients.

John Swallow needs to "Swallow" his PRIDE and do what is best for the
state of Utah. He can not be an effective AG at this point. We as a state
cannot afford a 3 million dollar process in Swallow's behalf. I also
disagree with the previous posts that it does not relate to previous actions
prior to the election. Had the facts been known prior to the election, he would
not have been elected in the first place. Former AG Mark Shurtleff is also to
blame for helping to cover up the facts prior to the election.

I don't have much confidence that the Legislature's investigation of
the AG will add any value.

It will take them some time before they
start, since it will take some time to determine who will be on the committee
and they're already well behind the other investigations which started some
time ago.

Seems more political, trying to appear like they're
doing something, when in fact, when the other investigations conclude, for good
or ill, it's likely the Legislature will conclude theirs without finishing,
after having spent time and money spinning their wheels.

If they
want to add value, they should focus on applying pressure to conclude the
investigation that are already underway.

The question the AG needs to
answer NOW is how the citizen of Utah can be confident that both he and his
office are able to continue to function in the best interest of the citizen of
Utah while he apparently spends the majority of his time on personal
matters--meeting with his personal attorneys and lobbying the legislature trying
to save his job.

He thought he was the Chief Law enforcer and was even the Chief Deputy. Now, he
has to deal with the people who make the laws that he is to enforce. He should
have thought about his statement of actions he signed/affirmed/sworn to uphold
at the Lieutenant Governor's office and at the swearing in as the Attorney
General. He did not come clean with the voters prior to his election and what
is even worse, that the prior AG didn't tell the voters that his Chief
Deputy was full of ethical and potential lawful flaws of varying degrees. The
Republicans need to do the house cleaning and it would appear that the prior AG
had some questionable people working in his office taking home pretty hefty
salaries. Those people were to defend our state and citizens but were involved,
it appears in other than straight politics.

It is sad that the GOP
and State will be put through something that will cost the taxpayers and
citizens a lot of money and time for the legislators involved.

Hopefully, it won't be a protect the AG at all costs for our State which
needs dollars.

Instead of the three million to investigate and probably have the committee look
like inspector Clouseau clones, why not make a deal? Pay the rest of his
salary, with benefits for the balance of his term, let him step down and call it
square.

Maybe it would be cheaper to hire a private investigator and
skip the nine member committee. The report could be presented to the
legislature and they could deal with the report in a just and deliberate manor.
Say during the last week of the legislature in 2014.

This was an elected office that he chose and volunteered to do when there were
other eligible people in both parties that could have done the job without
ethical hang-ups or other problems he CHOSE to do in his appointed and hired job
as Chief Deputy Attorney General. He knows that QUID PRO QUO is against all
elected and appointed offices. His predecessor, Mark Shurtleff, appears he was
along for the ride as emeritus status and just thought his pushing for John
Swallow until the end of his term would keep someone in office that would keep
silent on Mark's activities.

As Chief enforces of the law, they
know the law and the consequences that come from bending and violating the law.
To say he didn't do those things when he was the Attorney General is
absurd.

He acted for and on behalf of the Attorney General plenty of
times as the CHIEF Deputy Attorney General and that is salient in this
investigation. Even President Clinton got off in the politicking he did with
those Senators. As an attorney and an elected Governor and President he knew
"is" and consequences of relations with employees, moral and legally.